IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent.

In the context of the thread on having sex with someone who's very drunk, I'd say that this means that even if someone who is drunk consents to sex, if they reach a point where they would no longer be able to revoke that consent (ie. they are unconscious, or unaware of what is happening to them), then it is wrong to continue.

I grew up in the "no means no" culture, where a man must stop if a woman says no, regardless of how hot-and-heavy things may have gotten. She may have intentionally led you on, even explicitly stated her desire to have sex with you, stripped off all your clothes, and commenced coitus...but if she changes her mind, and says "no", then all consent has been revoked, and if you continue, it is non-consensual sex. Again, implicit in this kind of perspective is the assumed ability to revoke consent, at any point.

Now, things get tricky sometimes...such as the woman who says "no", but actually means "yes". I've faced this a few times myself, with a woman who said, apparently seriously, "No, stop that"...but then when I stopped, got upset with me, because what she actually wanted was for me to make more effort to seduce her.

So the question of the exact dividing line between consent and non-consent...that is hard to define, perhaps impossible to define in an absolute manner. But that the person involved must be in a position to retain the ability to revoke consent, that is something that I consider to be fairly fundamental, and far easier to determine. If they are unconscious, or unaware of what they are doing, then you must stop. Period.

I've been a viewer of many threads on rape, sex, yadda ya. I have even posted one of the most disturbing porn videos ever in the entire universe to the JREF chat. (I swear someone else did it.)

What, to you, defines consent?

Remie, I don't know about the legal definition, but I think two people can make a rational decision without bringing in lawyers and signing a contract. I've told you on the other thread, if I've ever been in doubt (as a man) I pulled the covers over the woman and walked away. I never wanted any question the next morning.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.).
NSFWhttp://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I certainly cannot come up with a comprehensive answer, but there's at least one component to it that I'd say is crucial -- the ability to revoke that consent. For example, for people involved in BDSM, it is a fairly common practice to have a safe word; so they grant consent to have pain and humiliation inflicted upon them, but retain the right to stop it at any point by use of the safe word. I'd consider that, from a legal perspective, such activities should be considered legal prior to use of the safe word, but if the safe word is used, must stop immediately, or they are now acting without consent.

In some countries, like the UK, where you cannot under any terms consent to be assaulted, one partner consenting to acts which would constitute assault are still illegal, the police would arrest both partners, one for assault, one for compliancy.
very famous case where the police arrested several gay bdsm practicioners who they originally thought must have been murdered because apparently no one would willingly consent to those actshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions, with the individual being in possession of all of his faculties (not mentally retarded or mentally ill), and his judgment not being impaired at the time of consenting (by sleepiness, intoxication by alcohol or drugs, other health problems, etc.).
NSFWhttp://www.informedconsent.co.uk/dic...ormed_consent/

Thanks, Marduk. I'm already well aware of the legal definition. I was defining my own moral view, which happens to fall inside the purview of the legal authorities. Is there anything else you would like to share?

ETA: I realize that I said "I don't know" but that was only an attempt to get the subject off the legal definition, and personally describe what I thought was right and wrong.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open

I understand that VERY WELL. My point was that I have a personal moral and ethical view, and that's what I WISHED TO DISCUSS. If you aren't interested, I won't be offended if you ignore me. In the meantime, rest assured that I am well aware of the legal distinctions, and only desire a sincere conversation between men and women about what is acceptable when it comes to sex, especially with someone you have just met. Please join in.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

If it comes to that, many women I've met in my life can allege rape. Should I be frightened and avoid women altogether?

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

Come up with some real life scenarios rather than the kind of boogie man stories that morons like Rush Limbaugh propose.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

He lives in Finland which is 6-9 hours ahead of the US, so, when this thread was posted, it was the middle of the might there.

I wasn't waiting for a literal answer, I just knew that he would weigh in on this topic eventually, and send it off the rails.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

...and allow me to say, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant argument.

I attack a woman, with a knife in hand, which I put at her throat. I tell her that I am going to have sex with her, and that if she puts up any resistance at all, I will slit her throat. She has full knowledge of what is going on, and doesn't resist at any point.

Can I therefore argue that it was "consensual sex"? One of the most ignorant and ill-founded arguments I've seen in this debate.

Hell, I don't even need to use a threat of force against her. I remember a case a number of years ago where two men forced themselves into a home where only a mother and her young daughter were present; the men told the woman that if she didn't do whatever they wanted, they would rape and then murder her daughter. The woman engaged in sex with both men multiple times, putting up no resistance whatsoever, and obviously being fully aware of what was going on.

Again...should this in any manner, shape, or form be considered "consensual sex"? Of course not. You'd have to be a raging misanthrope to argue otherwise.

...and allow me to say, what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant argument.

I attack a woman, with a knife in hand, which I put at her throat. I tell her that I am going to have sex with her, and that if she puts up any resistance at all, I will slit her throat. She has full knowledge of what is going on, and doesn't resist at any point.

Can I therefore argue that it was "consensual sex"? One of the most ignorant and ill-founded arguments I've seen in this debate.

Hell, I don't even need to use a threat of force against her. I remember a case a number of years ago where two men forced themselves into a home where only a mother and her young daughter were present; the men told the woman that if she didn't do whatever they wanted, they would rape and then murder her daughter. The woman engaged in sex with both men multiple times, putting up no resistance whatsoever, and obviously being fully aware of what was going on.

Again...should this in any manner, shape, or form be considered "consensual sex"? Of course not. You'd have to be a raging misanthrope to argue otherwise.

to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words.

eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different.

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

It's a variation on a theme he has been posting since at least my join date here, so posting it in this thread isn't out of line, imo.

I can't say it enough - like age stat rape cases are a rare exception, not the rule.

I don't see any reason for lowering the AOC based on those cases.

OK- my opinion mirrors yours, but you seem to speak with authority. Where are your stats from?

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

I was born and raised in the area, and except for military service and offshore work, have lived in this area for several decades.

Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

I wasn't questioning your professional opinion (like I said I already agreed with you) but I wanted to see some numbers to put it into perspective. Maybe numbers of stat rape cases in California by county?

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

Like age stat rape was absolutely not anywhere on our enforcement priority list.

Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers?

__________________I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

Why did you get so defensive AFTER I told you I agreed with you and just wanted to see some numbers?

I wasn't intending to be hostile at all - I wanted to make it as clear as possible that in the jurisdiction where I served, like age stat rape wasn't even on the radar.

As far as public statistics, they're not online wrt juvenile cases, but conviction information is public to the extent that an individual can request information from the county - I'm unaware if such records are or could be broken down as to age of the offender.

I am sure that convictions can be broken down as to the specific penal code 261 section IIRC for stat rape:

to be fair, those words were in a different thread, and JJM 777 isn't here to defend himself. However, they are his words.

eta: I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said, but don't attack him when I'm sure he will eventually arrive. He doesn't know what he is walking into, and those words were about age of consent, not rape. I still disagree with him, but it is different.

No, the words were about explicitly what consent is. Another poster had asked him to define consent and that is the definition he proffered.

Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape.

A more precise version of the same:

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented.

Things can be said more or less precisely. "The earth is round" is true or not true, depending on how precise you assume that the statement is intended to be. The earth is approximately round, but nowhere near a perfect ball shape.

A more precise version of the same:

> Consent is knowing what happens and not resisting it. An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist. In that case third parties cannot know if the person would have consented or not in the absence of threats, and we can only legally assume that he/she would not have consented.

I find it funny you were complaining about antiquated definitions in the other thread, but you are describing old Common Law. The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic:

Quote:

Recent studies94 have shown that active, demonstrable resistance of the type required by the common law, the Model Penal Code, and the pre-1981 California statute, is an atypical response to rape. Re- searchers have discovered that victims who resist their assailants have a greater chance of suffering serious bodily injury than those victims who do not resist.95 Additionally, the majority of women faced with violent assaults, such as rape, will not resist their assailants, but instead will "freeze" in a state of shock, and may appear to cooperate with their assailants. For these reasons, the resistance requirement should be eliminated from rape law because it is unrealistic and may threaten the
rape victim's life.

You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes.

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

> An exception is cases where the person is warned and threatened not to resist.

The problem with the "resistance" requirement is that it is not realistic
(...)
You are essentially shifting the burden of proof in a way we don't do with any other crimes.

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

What happend to "rape victims should accept that they are being raped and go with the flow to avoid being traumatized"?

OK, add to the definition:
> Another exception is cases where a person is criminally assaulted in a way that he/she has a reason to refrain from showing restraint in fear of it triggering more violence.

Besides, I am not talking about how to prove something in court. I just defined consent. If you want to talk about proof, indeed rape is the only serious crime where people are routinely convicted without any actual proof, in a word against word setting, two people telling a different story and no witnesses to prove the case.

Convictions for other crimes based on circumstantial evidence are not that uncommon.

generally, when dealing with consent, personal definitions are irrelevant. You won't be arresting yourself, if you're not using the legal definition relevant to your country of residence then you're leaving yourself wide open
Imagine one of those women you walked away from alleges rape and it goes to court, the second the prosecution asks you for the legal definition of consent and you say "I have my own", thats where you lost the case
I know you're a pretty sensible guy and this is unlikely to happen to you, but we're not the only two engaged in this thread

.
That's where the video cameras come in very handy..
"Consent all the way, yer honor, that evening!"